Why do RPGs have rules?

[clearstream]

In a recent B/X mid-level, mini-campaign of mine, players, for whatever reasons, excuses, real time constraints, different in-game priorities etc, simply refused to prepare their spells in advance, and, of course, demanded to cast spells when needed.
(Me: I got you covered: roll to cast, just don't roll a 1).
Can we say norms superseded rules?

[EDIT @Numidius I should say that for my part, I am suspending further exploring "what are game rules" questions in this thread. Sorry.]

 

[Numidius]

@clearstream No problem. I appreciated the discussion so far, by the way.

 

[pemerton]

voluntarily-adopted
A normative standard of the right sort that I don't adopt would still be a rule. And it would still be a rule even if I were made to involuntarily-adopt it. The problem here is mixing up rules with playing the game. It is right to say that to join in a game playfully is to voluntarily-adopt its rules (i.e. accept them among its lusory means.) But while rules are used to play a game, we can still point to or describe them, and can identify them as rules, even when not playing that game. Even without any intention of playing it.

I had hoped it was clear enough that, by "voluntarily adopted" I was pointing to a contrast with, say, workplace policies which are imposed on officers and employees of the organisation simply in virtue of being such officers or employees.

In these sorts of non-voluntary contexts, brute assignments of authority may be effective for establishing stable, enduring rules: for instance, the boss decides what the dress code is, and people go along with it because they don't want to get in trouble with the boss.

RPG rules, on the other hand, and as Baker is keenly aware of, have no similar "coercive" or "compulsory" character. The operate as rules purely if voluntarily adopted. This is the Lumpley Principle, and I think that Baker is correct to see it as a fundamental consideration in RPG design.

 

[pemerton]

Suppose someone sets out to design a RPG, and writes its rulebooks. But then no one ever plays the game - perhaps because they don't like the rules, or perhaps because, regardless of their attitude towards the rules, it turns out that, in play, the rules lack stability and the participants just drop into moment-by-moment negotiation. In the latter case, people might of course describe themselves as playing <whatever this hypothetical game calls itself>, but they wouldn't actually be playing the system of rules as published.

Anyway, this poor RPG that no one plays: is it really a game? Or is it a failed attempt at a game?

I don't see how the metaphysics of this really matter. But I'm pretty confident that Vincent Baker has an acute desire to avoid authoring such things!

 

[clearstream]

I asked the question in order to promote a conversation about the reasons for adopting such normative standards: what does the adoption of rules add to RPGing, that cannot be obtained just by engaging in cooperative imagination play?

Reflecting on this question and the conversation so far, two broad categories of RPG play stand out as necessitating rules

1. The emotionally fraught, where participants would be reticent to say the unwelcome and the unwanted; especially that had the potential to upset every single person at the table.
2. The systematically complex, where there are too many mechanics interacting in too many ways for participants to maintain and operate them purely mentally; especially in diverse circumstances over multiple sessions.

Thresholds for emotionally fraught will obviously be informed by norms, such as cultural or moral norms. Thresholds for complexity will be informed by the normal factors of cognition (e.g. working memory). 1. and 2. aren't necessarily in conflict. Nor are they impoverished by being prioritised one over the other.

Both 1. and 2. are to do with mental limits, giving another perspective on how play can be supported by rules.

 

[clearstream]

Reflecting on this question and the conversation so far, two broad categories of RPG play stand out as necessitating rules

1. The emotionally fraught, where participants would be reticent to say the unwelcome and the unwanted; especially that had the potential to upset every single person at the table.
2. The systematically complex, where there are too many mechanics interacting in too many ways for participants to maintain and operate them purely mentally; especially in diverse circumstances over multiple sessions.

Thresholds for emotionally fraught will obviously be informed by norms, such as cultural or moral norms. Thresholds for complexity will be informed by the normal factors of cognition (e.g. working memory). 1. and 2. aren't necessarily in conflict. Nor are they impoverished by being prioritised one over the other.

Both 1. and 2. are to do with mental limits, giving another perspective on how play can be supported by rules.

A third categoy of RPG play that necessitates rules presents itself

3. The competitively robust, where participants want fair outcomes influenced by their dissimilar choices in contests between them (PvP, PvE), especially as disparities widen between outcomes and participants want to play their hands vigorously.

3. contains a lot of moving parts. Fair outcomes: let the better play - or luck - prevail. Influenced by their dissimilar choices: let it be fair even where accessing or choosing different - possibly unequal - strategies. Contests: player versus player is clear, player versus environment includes (may often amount to) player versus GM. Disparities widen between outcomes: the stakes increase, losing sucks more, winning is more rewarding, including here intangible stakes such as preening. Play their hands vigorously: @loverdrive suggested this (on GM side) and I think it applies to players too - participants need not hold back, they can exploit their advantages without compunction.

I can squint at 3. and see it as about mental limits, but I think it is more about conforming play to competitive urges and to normative standards of competitive integrity and sportsmanship.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A third categoy of RPG play that necessitates rules presents itself

3. The competitively robust, where participants want fair outcomes influenced by their dissimilar choices in contests between them (PvP, PvE), especially as disparities widen between outcomes and participants want to play their hands vigorously.

3. contains a lot of moving parts. Fair outcomes: let the better play - or luck - prevail. Influenced by their dissimilar choices: let it be fair even where accessing or choosing different - possibly unequal - strategies. Contests: player versus player is clear, player versus environment includes (may often amount to) player versus GM. Disparities widen between outcomes: the stakes increase, losing sucks more, winning is more rewarding, including here intangible stakes such as preening. Play their hands vigorously: @loverdrive suggested this (on GM side) and I think it applies to players too - participants need not hold back, they can exploit their advantages without compunction.

I can squint at 3. and see it as about mental limits, but I think it is more about conforming play to competitive urges and to normative standards of competivitive integrity and sportsmanship.

Yes, the 'G' in GNS...

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, the 'G' in GNS...

Ah, yes. G. The whipping boy of N and S enthusiasts and while all are agendas are equal, G is the most BadWrongFun of all.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ah, yes. G. The whipping boy of N and S enthusiasts and while all are agendas are equal, G is the most BadWrongFun of all.

At least back in the GDS days we mostly just got ignored.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ah, yes. G. The whipping boy of N and S enthusiasts and while all are agendas are equal, G is the most BadWrongFun of all.

I prefer an S game with G where needed to make the game work. N can appear as a result of play.